Review: Public Enemies (5/10) - 2009: Camerawork Is Criminal

When the first glimpses of Johnny Depp and Christian Bale's new onscreen adventure played out in the preview section before a movie I was watching in the cinema a while back, I was literally taken aback by the sheer quality of film the trailer promised me. Often a trailer can ruin a movie, but in other instances it can offer insight into the type of acting, filming style and music you will witness when sitting down to watch the movie itself.

This was possibly one of the first movies that, after watching the trailer, I had been excited to watch in a quite a while (aside from Inglourious Basterds which I've been waiting 4 years for),. The combination of suspense and drama of an old-fashioned gangster movie lasting a bum-numbing 140 minutes was exciting in itself as I really enjoyed Road To Perdition.

The film was directed by Michael Mann, who has previously produced the likes of The Aviator (2004) and more recently Hancock (2008), and directed Ali (2001), Collateral (2004) and Miami Vice (2006). Public Enemies' starring lineup include the likes of Johnny Depp and Christian Bale as mentioned, in addition to Marion Cotillard, Stephen Dorff and Stephen Graham to name a few.

The story follows the final years of John Dillinger (Johnny Depp), a notorious bank robber living in 1930's Chicago, who loved his trade and was constantly one the run from the authorities and FBI. The movie covers Dillinger's affections for Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), and their increasing love affair whilst the rest of the world flies by. Similarly, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), an FBI agent hired to track Dillinger down is added to the equation providing numerous gun battles, action scenes and solid performances from both Depp and Bale, that almost save this movie single-handedly from catastrofic production failure (in my opinion).

In order to envisage what I am trying to explain, please view the official trailer below:


At first glance this trailer promises the world to the viewer, and I expect that you, the reader are questioning my judgement and disagreeing with everything I've mentioned about the film so far (aside from the storyline). If I had not sat through the movie I would also agree with you, however I must insist that the way this movie is filmed, I believe a one-armed, blind chimpanzee could have caught the action (and even still shots) more accurately.

Every sequence seemed to be shot in zoom and on a handicam, not to mention super-fast editing from one zoom to another, resulting in mild epilepsy and nausia to the viewer. Parts of the gun-fighting scenes seemed poorly produced on an After Effects and graphics scale, and the lack of a steadicam in every single scene, apart from those lifted for the trailer, were abysmal.

Acting-wise I believed that Billie (Cotillard) throughout the movie was in-fact American until the final scenes, when it turns out this is not the case and her accent shifts to an Eastern European style, thus throwing her entire performance out of proportion. Stephen Graham's transition from 'This Is England' hardman to Baby Face Nelson was very well acted. Stephen Dorff was hardly recogniseable, which could be down to either good acting, or poor scripting for his character.

Johnny Depp needs no introduction in my opinion and whilst I do not believe that this was his finest performance, I could not find anything particularly off-putting about it either. Leonardo DiCaprio was initially to star in a leading role for this movie when it was put into development in 2004 (IMDB), and what an interesting combination that would have made (provided Depp or Bale were not removed in the process).

Similarly, Christian Bale used his stern, "hard-ass" acting ability similar to American Psycho, a character to which he portray's perfectly time and time again, thus saving the film from becoming a completely lacklustre production with a fairly hefty budget. The costumes used throughout the movie were extremely well selected, as were the automobiles and general scenery.

IMDB state that:

"The gunfight at the lodge in the woods was filmed at the Little Bohemia Lodge in Manitowish Waters, WI which is the actual location where the gunfight between Dillinger and the FBI took place in 1934. In fact, shell casings from the 1934 gunfight can still be found in the woods surrounding the lodge."

The film also provides a cameo appearance from Emilie DeRavin (Lost) early on in the movie. Click here for more Trivia or Goofs, but I must warn that they contain spoilers. In all, I rated this movie a 5/10 as to the way the entire cinematographical process was produced, as I keep mentioning (I seriously can't get over it). This inevitably led to the poor quality and constant headache that most people in the cinema endured, and if it weren't for solid script and acting from the majority of the cast and crew, the score would be a lot lower unfortunately.

Review: Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past (7/10) - 2009: Presently Funny

Forgive me for not posting a review in a while, but I have been extremely busy with summer in Cyprus and the limited time I have left this year to enjoy the finer things in life such as sun, sea, friends, family and Greek food. Anyway, when I was offered the chance to watch Matthew McConaughey in another "chick-flick" I almost threw up a little and wanted to almost go back on my plans to go to the cinema.


The thought of sitting through 100 minutes of his usual drivel disgusted me, however I always looked at Jennifer Garner as a pleasing bit of eye-candy. (Please excuse the male-ness in my tone, but it's true, she's pretty). In all, I had the choice to sit through this movie or watch GI Joe, and after hearing poor reviews about that movie, and good ones about this one (mainly from the beautiful Natalia), (not to mention that GI Joe had started already), I accepted my fate, took a big breath and walked into the cinema.

Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past was originally set up at Walt Disney Pictures with Ben Affleck selected to play the lead character. However, budgetary issues, and the failure of Gigli (2003) forced the studio to cancel filming one month prior to shooting (IMDB).

The movie is based on Charles Dickens' age-old fairy tale "A Christmas Carol" about Scrooge at Christmas who is visited by three ghosts (Past, Present and Future). The twist in the story follows Connor Mead (McConaughey) who is infact a modern day Hugh Heffner, with beautiful women on the end of his fingertips (with direct connotations to Scrooge and his money). McConaughey plays the role of a famous photographer who has the ability to use and disgard women as he pleases (an ability every man forced to watch this movie at the cinema will eventually learn to love and even inadvertently learn from).

His brother Paul Conner (played by Breckin Meyer) is about to get married and as taught by his late uncle (Michael Douglas) about weddings and love being superficial and nonexistent entities of life, McConaughey seeks out to "save" his brother from making the mistake of his life. The mistake being that being married, he would succumb to a life of manogamy, a concept of which McConaughey finds both disturbing and impossible to comprehend. He would then revisit his past, present and future to learn the errors of his ways and discover why he ended up the way he did, with the ultimate chance to change as a person for the better.

The following is the film's official trailer:


Now I'm not going to lie... I was virtually dragged kicking and screaming into the cinema to watch this film and I will hold my hand up and say that I actually enjoyed it. My views on McConaughey have dramatically changed and his role as suave ladies-man was a cross between Ryan Reynolds' wit and charm, with Owen Wilson's dry, relaxed style of talking. I found myself laughing at the pickup routines, come-backs and general banter that danced to and fro between Garner and McConaughey. Douglas' role made me (as well as the audience) laugh in almost every scene and played the role of the ultimate ladies-man guru extremely well.

I believe that Garner's acting was slightly wooden and quite similar to her other movies, however this did not deter the movie in the slightest and why I have awarded it an impressive 7/10. I believe the movie would have been a flop if Ben Affleck had taken the reigns as he does not fill the role as well as McConaughey in my opinion. I do recommend watching this movie if you enjoyed the Proposal or Wedding Crashers.

Review: Blindness (3/10) - 2009: Blind (Staff) Leading The Blind (Cast)?

When I visited my local DVD store, after browsing the shelves of the movies I've already watched, deciding what I could blindly pick (no pun intended), this was when this movie cover really caught my eye. I read the synopsis on the back, and the concept was very different to anything I'd come across in a long while.

The idea of a "White Sickness" where an airborne virus renders people blind without any visible signs of infection was extremely intriguing to me. Directed by Fernando Meirelles (The Constant Gardener, City of God), inspired by José Saramago's novel, Blindness takes the viewer on a 121 minute deteriorating process of an infection, not dissimilar to 24 Days Later.

I have always thought Julianne Moore (Hannibal, Evolution) was a good actress and adding Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon) and Mark Ruffalo (Zodiac) was an interesting choice of cast for this seemingly low-budget movie. Ironically scenes with empty streets and damaged property indicate that there was a higher budget than I originally expected, however this did not come across in the final production of the movie in my opinion.

The story of the movie as indicated begin with an individual suddenly becoming blind whilst driving home. This sickness spreads to the point of isolating the sick from the healthy in a hospital's blind ward, guarded by soldiers. An eye-doctor (Ruffalo) contracts the disease whilst treating the original victim, whilst his wife (Moore) is seemingly unaffected by the sickness. This renders her the only sighted person in the blind ward after refusing to leave her husband's side in his time of need, and feigning illness to allow her into the quarantined area. The storyline follows the individuals' plight in increasingly squalid conditions within the ward, with limited supplies and support on the way.

The following trailer shows the potential this movie has to offer:



Whilst Blindness was selected as the opening film at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival, this does not automatically safeguard it from the numerous flaws and inaccuracies that the film exhibits. IMDB state that in order to prepare for acting in the film, all of the actors, crew and extras participated in so-called "blind camps". In these camps, participants were blindfolded, taken to an unknown location and left in the middle of the street to find their way around.

It can be noted that there was always someone on-hand to guide them, yet almost always, Director Fernando Meirelles claims that someone would always breakdown and give up. As with the training, the film lacks any realism when it comes to acting blind. Of course it is a hard skill, but there are always ways to make it more realistic, including blacked-out lenses for example.

I had high hopes for this movie and I felt continuously let down by the camera angles, poor musical composition and quality, and the way the movie seemed to drag on, rather than build up anticipation to an emphatic climax. Unrealistic scenarios that include an unsupervised blind ward are one of the many moments which suspend this movie from really working well, and I feel that in another world, developed by a different company, with superior cast, this film could have been a major blockbuster. This is the reason for the low 3/10 score I've provided it.

The numerous continuation errors and seemingly endless patience from Moore, when she could simply take charge of the entire situations she faced remaining as the only sighted person was almost petty. City of God was fantastic, but I feel that Fernando Meirelles did not reproduce the quality found in that production, with this movie. I find it increasingly frustrating that I cannot divulge into exact examples, which could ruin the movie for those who would like to see it, however I'd like to offer my view that I really do suggest that people give this movie a go despite what I've said.

The reason for this is that it is a completely new concept, it is exciting and unpredictable at times, and if you put aside your differences with the acting and the unrealistic scenarios mentioned, (among many others) it can be an enjoyable experience. I think for a film like this, it may be down to the individual, but in my opinion it was a poorer-executed 24 Days Later.

Advertising: Shock Tactics - Safety Belts

My second post on this blog covered Australian Vs UK road safety government advertisements, and I would like to take the opportunity to extend this section into safety belt advertisements. Again governments like using shock tactics to convince people to look out for not only their safety, but of those their friends and families as well as means of getting their messages across more effectively.

Before I divulge into advertising from a purely British perspective, advertising of which you are more than likely to have come across, I would also like to bring you an advertisement from Lebanon which literally made my hair stand on end. This is an advertisement which should be played around the world in my opinion:

Heaven Can Wait



Heaven can wait is a message which sent shivers down my spine and gave me goosebumps, which if viewed with full attention, I'm sure was the same for you as well. The fact that the "ghost" was trying to release the soul by pressing the belt-buckle unsuccessfully due to being a non-entity, was in my opinion, shudderingly effective.

The following advertisement is one which you will have come across on television in the UK regarding a scenario of pre and post buckling up in the car:

Seat Belts In Reverse



I find this advertisement extremely effective for youngsters who have just passed their tests or are not paying attention in their entirety when driving with friends. Everyone, myself included, can admit to being pre-occupied when friends are present in the car and only due to being brought up with a strict "have you got your seat belt on?" policy, have I made sure that all of my friends "buckle up" before I set off on my journey.

One of the most effective at the time in my opinion was the following seat belt advertisement:

Julie's Killer


What made this advertisement really hit home when I first witnessed this advertisement as you do not expect the outcome due to the narrative process. I found myself sitting there, watching and wondering who this killer was in the suspect van following the family. Was it their father, uncle, aunt or dodgy neighbour? Alas, it was simply the lack of seat belt and I feel that how the narrative deters the viewer from the actual cause of death was extremely realistic and powerful in its nature.

More recently, the following post-watershed advertisement is one which those that live in the UK will have come across and were probably shocked by:



This advertisement in my opinion is less effective than the Lebanese advertisement in the sense that, although it was graphic and made me take notice, it had less stopping power.

Which of the advertisements were the most effective to you?

Review: Horsemen (6/10) - 2009: Riding Into Twists And Turns

Despite looking like a bemused Gordon Ramsay lookalike in the poster, Dennis Quaid in fact pulls off a solid, powerful performance throughout this 90 minute crime thriller. Produced by Michael Bay and directed by Jonas Åkerlund, this movie offers much potential and provides well in certain areas, yet it can be mentioned that it lacks disappointingly in others.



The story follows Aidan Breslin (Dennis Quaid) as a detective who has become increasingly distant from his two sons after his wife died of cancer. The chain of murders are based upon the Biblical prophecies surrounding chapter six of the Book of Revelations that include the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse described below on par with the movie:

The White Horseman (Pestilence) - The white horse of the apocalyptic four may represent polar qualities of evil or righteousness, depending on interpretation. Some interpret the rider of the white horse to be the Anti-Christ, whereas others believe it is Jesus Christ himself.

The Red Horseman (War) - The rider of the second horse is generally held to represent War. The red color of his horse represents blood spilled on the battlefield. He carries a great sword, which represents battle and fighting.

The Black Horseman (Famine)- The third horseman riding the black horse is called Famine, with the colour black also being a symbol of the dead.

The Pale Horseman (Death) - The fourth horseman, usually said to ride on a pale horse, is explicitly named Death. Of all the riders, he is the only one whose name is easily distinguishable. Generally, he is usually followed by Hades (Gravedom). The color of the horse has been translated as "ashen", "pale", or "pale green".

Aside from the Biblical references, Ziyi Zhang, most notable for her roles in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and House Of Flying Daggers, pulls of a phenomenal and scintilating display as Kristin, an adopted daughter of a murder victim. Prior to this movie I assumed that she was unable to speak any English due to the nature of her previous movies being purely in Chinese, however she performs very well from this point of view.

I have wouldn't be suprised if Lou Taylor Pucci, starring as Alex in the movie, will be awarded a few more contracts in the near future. Despite looking almost identical to a younger Mark Owen (from Take That), his role as disgruntled teenager working as a stand-in father whilst his real father works all day and night is amicable, not to mention some later scenes in the movie. In fact, the majority of the actors and extras performed very well in the movie.

It can be noted that the movie's soundtrack was extremely echoey and of poor quality, not to mention very average in terms of musical composition. The music volume often matched, or was higher to those speaking during scenes, often ceasing for no reason, which was extremely off-putting.



I noticed that this movie had similar characteristics to Se7en (1995); perhaps in style of writing, ending technique, or biblical references such as with Se7en's 7 Deadly Sins concept of death by gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, wrath, pride and lust, taken from Roman Catholic Virtues.

I've rated this movie a 6/10 because whilst the film sends you on a rollercoaster ride of twists and turns as the story unfolds, there was something missing from the almost too-sudden ending. This blog is described in a way so as to encourage movie-going/renting and purchasing where possible without ruining plot-lines and endings, so forgive some sections that may appear lacklustre in detail.

So without giving too much away, in my opinion, the script could have included a certain therapist into the script to provide further substance and depth to the outcome of the movie, along with more of a detailed scenario about what would happen next. This is the reason that this particular movie did not perform to the full potential it initially held whilst watching it.

Indie Review: Funny Games (7/10) - 2007: Watt's So Funny?

When scouring the local Blockbuster with another avid movie-addict I know, it's almost an impossible task to find a DVD both of us haven't seen. After scanning the shelves for a good thirty minutes or so, Samantha picked up "Funny Games". Now it seemed like a very unusual name for a movie, especially after reading the disturbing synopsis on the back, but we decided to give it a go under the notion that if it was a bad movie, that would be the last time she chose a movie with me. Harsh? Maybe, but it was all in good fun. (Incidentally, I picked the worst movie of the night so I'll keep that bit quiet).

When you read of a movie which has been re-released under the same name, by the same director (Michael Haneke), it should raise alarm bells with questions such as: Was it not successful the first time? Is someone that creatively challenged that they need to copy their own work?

However, after some research the original (1997) was an Austrian-release, compared to the new U.S. version starring surprisingly Naomi Watts (from The Ring). This surprised us due to the seemingly very low budget of the film, with fairly unknown actors involved aside from her, yet almost convinced Sam and I to rent it, rather than leave it on the shelves to collect dust.

IMDB indicate that the production crew used the blueprints from the original movie to create a shot-by-shot remake, including using the same proportions for the set of the house in 2007 as that of the set in 1997.

The movie is intended to represent how media influences violence in society, where a white, middle-class family are subjected to horrendous torture (both psychological and physical) and violence in the form of a "game" by two young visitors at the family's remote holiday home by the lake. The subject of this film is one that director Michael Haneke is quite passionate about.

Naomi Watt's performance is superb, as are all of the actors, with Tim Roth making a very convincing husband. The cold-hearted ruthlessness of Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet, leave a spine-tingling, shuddering concept of the capabilities of youths of today, possibly influenced through the media, and the whole concept of the movie. There are numerous scenes leaving you on the edge of your seat, including one with Devon Gearhart (the son of Watt's and Roth in the movie), wondering what exactly is going to happen next, like that of a Quentin Tarantino movie.

I must warn you that this is not your average slasher movie, and is edited in a very unique way. This includes characters communicating between themselves and the viewer. Some scenes like this may come across as confusing in the wider context, however this could simply be put down to the director who aims to provide an experience different to one that a viewer has ever experienced before, whilst succeeding at doing so.

The following trailer indicate the style of movie explained, but don't let the light-hearted soundtrack fool you:



I've rated this movie 7/10 and I highly recommend it for anyone who wish to be left shocked, disturbed and confused by the end credits. To give you an idea of the kind of movie it is claimed that during the film's screening at Cannes in 1997, it shocked the audience so badly that many viewers and film critics alike, walked out of the screening itself.

Very few movies leave you speechless and unable to comprehend the brutality they just witnessed, so the director can be credited on this. All I know is, that if anyone ever rings my doorbell mentioning their aunt sending them to fetch some eggs... I know where I'll tell them to go. (I'll also lock up my house, carry a knife in each hand, and hide in my locked room)... Sound a bit extreme? Then watch this movie...enough said!

Review - The Proposal (7/10) - 2009: Sandra Bullock Proposing More Laughs Than Usual

I am an avid fan of Ryan Reynolds and know that no matter what movie he's in, I'm guaranteed his quick-witted humour and laughing until my sides hurt (See Just Friends, Van Wilder, and Two Guys, A Girl And A Pizza Place to name a few). However the dilemma for me was the simple fact that Sandra Bullock would be co-starring in a movie with primarily two characters.



The reason the movie "Crash" didn't affect affect me so badly was the fact she only starred in about 2-3 scenes. She is the same, whiney actress in nearly everything she does and I was almost debating giving the movie a miss because of it. You may think it's harsh, but I'm really not a fan.

I'd like to think that I'm right a lot of the time, but on this occasion, her performance was superb. This could be down to the fact that her role was a stuck up ice-queen Margaret Tate, an executive editor-in-chief of a major book publishing company...but this is besides the point. The movie surrounds Bullock, a Canadian-national working in America, who's visa has expired and suddenly faces deportation.

Her plan includes blackmailing her personal assistant Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds) to marry her in order to avoid the deportation process, therefore making her a legal American Citizen. He grudgingly accepts, under the condition that he is promoted to the position of editor. The story continues with Reynolds' trip to Alaska for his grandma's 90th birthday party where the "couple" aim to announce their "engagement". As always, Reynolds performs solidly with numerous facial expressions, catch-phrases, and actions to make this a very enjoyable Romantic Comedy.

The following movie trailer indicates things to come throughout the movie:



It was reported that Reynolds was shocked to discover that he would be sharing an exposing scene with Bullock at one point within the movie. He initially believed that the script would be re-written to exclude the scene, as he didn't think she would agree to filming it.

I'd like to mention however that this movie was not as successful as Just Married for example as the missing ingredient was Reynolds' dialogue. I don't believe that he was provided with a completely solid script, in the sense that his humour almost seemed forced and trying to compete with roles in previous movies. Nevertheless, I rate this movie 7/10 and found it an extremely enjoyable romantic comedy and highly recommend it for a good night in with the other-half (or lots of popcorn and ice-cream if you're on your own).